[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 14/18] net/ixgbe: parse L2 tunnel filter

Adrien Mazarguil adrien.mazarguil at 6wind.com
Thu Jan 5 09:52:03 CET 2017


On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 03:12:01AM +0000, Zhao1, Wei wrote:
> Hi, adrien
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Adrien Mazarguil [mailto:adrien.mazarguil at 6wind.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 10:08 PM
> > To: Zhao1, Wei <wei.zhao1 at intel.com>
> > Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu at intel.com>
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 14/18] net/ixgbe: parse L2 tunnel filter
> > 
> > Hi Wei,
> > 
> > On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 03:53:06PM +0800, Wei Zhao wrote:
> > > check if the rule is a L2 tunnel rule, and get the L2 tunnel info.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Wei Zhao <wei.zhao1 at intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Wenzhuo Lu <wenzhuo.lu at intel.com>
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > v2:
> > > --add new error set function
> > > --change return value type of parser function
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c | 269
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > >  lib/librte_ether/rte_flow.h      |  32 +++++
> > >  2 files changed, 273 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
> > [...]
> > > diff --git a/lib/librte_ether/rte_flow.h b/lib/librte_ether/rte_flow.h
> > > index 98084ac..e9e6220 100644
> > > --- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_flow.h
> > > +++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_flow.h
> > > @@ -268,6 +268,13 @@ enum rte_flow_item_type {
> > >  	 * See struct rte_flow_item_vxlan.
> > >  	 */
> > >  	RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_VXLAN,
> > > +
> > > +	/**
> > > +	  * Matches a E_TAG header.
> > > +	  *
> > > +	  * See struct rte_flow_item_e_tag.
> > > +	  */
> > > +	RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_E_TAG,
> > >  };
> > >
> > >  /**
> > > @@ -454,6 +461,31 @@ struct rte_flow_item_vxlan {  };
> > >
> > >  /**
> > > + * RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_E_TAG.
> > > + *
> > > + * Matches a E-tag header.
> > > + */
> > > +struct rte_flow_item_e_tag {
> > > +	struct ether_addr dst; /**< Destination MAC. */
> > > +	struct ether_addr src; /**< Source MAC. */
> > > +	uint16_t e_tag_ethertype; /**< E-tag EtherType, 0x893F. */
> > > +	uint16_t e_pcp:3; /**<  E-PCP */
> > > +	uint16_t dei:1; /**< DEI */
> > > +	uint16_t in_e_cid_base:12; /**< Ingress E-CID base */
> > > +	uint16_t rsv:2; /**< reserved */
> > > +	uint16_t grp:2; /**< GRP */
> > > +	uint16_t e_cid_base:12; /**< E-CID base */
> > > +	uint16_t in_e_cid_ext:8; /**< Ingress E-CID extend */
> > > +	uint16_t e_cid_ext:8; /**< E-CID extend */
> > > +	uint16_t type; /**< MAC type. */
> > > +	unsigned int tags; /**< Number of 802.1Q/ad tags defined. */
> > > +	struct {
> > > +		uint16_t tpid; /**< Tag protocol identifier. */
> > > +		uint16_t tci; /**< Tag control information. */
> > > +	} tag[]; /**< 802.1Q/ad tag definitions, outermost first. */ };
> > [...]
> > 
> > See my previous reply [1], this definition is not endian-safe and comprises
> > protocols defined as independent items (namely ETH and VLAN). Here is an
> > untested suggestion:
> > 
> >  struct rte_flow_item_e_tag {
> >      uint16_t tpid; /**< Tag protocol identifier (0x893F). */
> >      /** E-Tag control information (E-TCI). */
> >      uint16_t epcp_edei_in_ecid_b; /**< E-PCP (3b), E-DEI (1b), ingress E-CID
> > base (12b). */
> >      uint16_t rsvd_grp_ecid_b; /**< Reserved (2b), GRP (2b), E-CID base (12b).
> > */
> >      uint8_t in_ecid_e; /**< Ingress E-CID ext. */
> >      uint8_t ecid_e; /**< E-CID ext. */
> >  };
> > 
> > Applications are responsibile for breaking down and filling individual fields
> > properly. Ethernet header would be provided as its own item as shown in
> > this testpmd flow command example:
> > 
> >  flow create 0 ingress pattern eth / e_tag in_ecid_base is 42 / end actions
> > drop / end
> > 
> 
> In this case , is  eth  an option or mandatory? 
> I think it is optional, because user may do not have any parameter in ETH  config.

Normally, protocol items start from L2 so applications *should* provide
ETH otherwise it is an error.

Now a PMD may also allow it to be implicit when it is unambiguous (e.g. an
imaginary ETH item provided without a mask) as described in the "UDPv6
anywhere" example [2]. It's up to you.

> > Note, all multibyte values are in network order like other protocol header
> > definitions.
> > 
> > [1] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-December/053181.html
> >     Message ID: 20161223081310.GH10340 at 6wind.com

[2] http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.html#matching-pattern

-- 
Adrien Mazarguil
6WIND


More information about the dev mailing list